Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 122 (HP)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. KAVITA CHABRA

2005-05-09

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the Insurance Company has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MAC Petition No. 54-S/2 of 1996, decided on 15.1.1997 whereby the claim petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 5,19,500/- awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that deceased Sanjay Kumar was the husband of respondent No. 1 Kavita Chhabra and father of respondent No. 2 Master Mohit. His father respondent No. 3 was the owner of a Jeep Bearing No. HP-06-0031. This jeep was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company On 17.7.1994 Sanjay Kumar was driving the aforesaid Jeep. It is alleged that suddenly stones fell from the hillside. As a result thereof the jeep went off the road and fell into the river Sutlej. Sanjay Kumar died on the spot itself. 3. The claimants-respondents 1 and 2 being the widow and minor child of deceased Sanjay Kumar filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Act for grant of compensation. 4. The Insurance Company raised various pleas and took up the plea that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act were applicable and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,19,500/- as compensation. 6. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that in view of law laid down by the apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385, the claim petition was not maintainable. As per the claimants the deceased Sanjay Kumar was earning much more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. According to them the salary of the deceased was more than Rs. 45,000/- per annum. Therefore, even the petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. He further submits that the accident in question had occurred on 17.7.1994 prior to the promulgation of Section 163-A of the Act which was introduced by way of amendment w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Therefore, also the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable. 45,000/- per annum. Therefore, even the petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. He further submits that the accident in question had occurred on 17.7.1994 prior to the promulgation of Section 163-A of the Act which was introduced by way of amendment w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Therefore, also the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable. Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows : "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notwithstanding anything, contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of Section 163-A can only be invoked if the annual income of the person injured /deceased qua whom compensation is being claimed is less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Jagdish Vats has argued that there is no limit provided under Section 163-A and even if a limit is to be taken then the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 40,000/-per annum and compensation can be awarded under Section 163-A. 8. This question is no longer res Integra. The Apex Court in Deepals case supra has held as follows: "42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/-per annum and compensation can be awarded under Section 163-A. 8. This question is no longer res Integra. The Apex Court in Deepals case supra has held as follows: "42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto, compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefore..... 53. Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the Court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. (See Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Ramanuja Match Industries, (1985)1 SCC 218)." The Apex Court finally held as follows: "67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a Cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act." 9. The Supreme Court has clearly held that the provisions of Section 163-A can only be invoked if the income of the person who has died or in case of injury the income of the person injured is less than Rs. 40,000 per annum. The Supreme Court has specifically disagreed with the finding in Kodaks case, (2001) 5 SCC 175, that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A the income of Rs. 40,000/- p.a. shall be treated as a cap. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that since the deceased was earning more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. shall be treated as a cap. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that since the deceased was earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum the petition filed under Section 163-A was not maintainable. 11. As noticed above the accident occurred prior to the promulgation of Section 163-A, it is a well settled law that the rights of the parties are to be decided on the basis of the law as it stands on the date of the accident. The amended provisions cannot be made retrospective. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Kashmiri Lal v. The Deaba Roadways and others, 1998 (1) Shim. L.C. 68, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1982 SC 836; Ramesh Singh and another v. Cinta Davi and others, JT 1996 (5) S.C. 543 and M.K. Kunhimohammad v. PA. Ahmedkutty and others, AIR 1987 SC 2158, held that the provisions amending Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under Section 163-A of the Act which has no application in case of accidents occurring prior to the enactment of the said Section. 13. Mr. Jagdish Vats, appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that at least the amount payable under Section 140 of the Act should be ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. He has relied upon the directions given by the Apex Court in para 71 of the Deepals case (supra) whereby it was ordered that the claim application of the appellant under Section 163-A of the Act should be treated as an application under Section 140 thereof. I cannot accept this argument. The Apex Court has clearly indicated that it has issued this direction under Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court does not enjoy any such jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court has no authority to direct that the application under Section 163-A be treated as an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal dated 15.1.1997 is set aside with no order as to costs. The petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is dismissed as not maintainable. 14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal dated 15.1.1997 is set aside with no order as to costs. The petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is dismissed as not maintainable. The claimants will be at liberty to avail of any other remedy available to them under law. Appeal dismissed.